Liquid I.V. allulose lawsuits

Liquid I.V. faces multiple proposed class actions challenging sugar-related claims on allulose-sweetened drink mixes.

The core allegation is straightforward but legally technical: the plaintiffs say products marketed as "Sugar Free," "Zero Sugar," or "0 Sugar" contain several grams of allulose per serving, while federal regulations treat allulose as a monosaccharide and set a less-than-0.5-gram sugar threshold for a sugar-free nutrient-content claim.

No court has made a final finding that Liquid I.V., The LIV Group, or Unilever is liable on those allegations in the cases tracked here.

The Liquid I.V. allulose cases we count

We currently count three federal matters as verified or cross-checked Liquid I.V. allulose cases.

The federal docket indexes confirm the filings and named defendants. (Hook docket) (Ulrich docket) (Baus docket)

That defendant distinction matters. Ulrich names The LIV Group, Inc. The Hook and Baus dockets also name Unilever United States, Inc. A brand hub should not silently replace the defendants actually named in each complaint with a parent-company shorthand.

The primary complaint we reviewed: Ulrich v. The LIV Group

The most detailed primary document currently linked to this page is the 40-page complaint in Ulrich et al. v. The LIV Group, Inc., filed August 12, 2026 in the Northern District of California. (Primary complaint PDF)

The complaint alleges that Liquid I.V. Sugar-Free Electrolyte Drink Mix products are marketed with representations including:

• "Sugar Free";
• "Zero Sugar";
• "0 Sugar"; and
• a "0 sugar hydration solution."

The complaint further alleges that different variants disclose four or five grams of allulose per serving and that allulose is the first-listed and predominant ingredient by weight. Those are allegations in the complaint, not findings by the court. (Primary complaint PDF)

Which Liquid I.V. products does the Ulrich complaint identify?

The complaint defines its products broadly to include all flavors and pack configurations of Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free Electrolyte Drink Mix and Sugar-Free Energy Multiplier.

It specifically lists flavors or editions including:

• Green Grape;
• Lemon Lime;
• Lychee Splash;
• Mandarin Orange;
• Mango Passion Fruit;
• Rainbow Sherbet;
• Raspberry;
• Raspberry Melon;
• Ring Pop;
• Strawberry;
• White Peach;
• licensed and co-branded editions such as Spider-Man Raspberry; and
• Sugar-Free Energy Multiplier variety packs.

That list comes from the Ulrich complaint. It should not automatically be treated as the product definition in every other Liquid I.V. case unless those pleadings independently support the same scope. (Primary complaint PDF)

What does the Ulrich complaint say about allulose amounts?

The Ulrich complaint alleges that each serving contains either four or five grams of allulose depending on the variant.

Its theory is that the products therefore contain at least eight times the 0.5-gram cutoff incorporated into the sugar-free rule.

That statement should remain attributed to the complaint. The lawsuit is challenging the legality and consumer meaning of the labels; the complaint itself is not a judicial finding. (Primary complaint PDF)

What classes does Ulrich propose?

The complaint proposes several classes rather than an already certified class.

The proposed Nationwide Class covers people in the United States who, during the maximum legally permitted period, purchased the defined products for personal use. It also proposes a multi-state consumer-protection subclass plus California and New York subclasses. (Primary complaint PDF)

Those proposed definitions are not a certified class.

What laws are alleged in Ulrich?

The complaint pleads claims under:

• California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
• California's Unfair Competition Law;
• California's False Advertising Law;
• New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350;
• consumer-protection laws for a proposed multi-state subclass;
• breach of express warranty; and
• unjust enrichment.

Those are pleaded causes of action. They are not findings that any defendant violated those statutes. (Primary complaint PDF)

How do the three Liquid I.V. cases relate?

The three verified cases were filed within ten days of one another in the same federal district.

They challenge closely related Liquid I.V. sugar-free marketing, but they remain separate dockets with different named plaintiffs and, in some instances, different defendants.

For that reason, we do not present them as one consolidated action unless a court record later establishes consolidation or another formal relationship.

The current dataset also contains research-queue entries for other lawsuits involving The LIV Group whose allulose relevance has not been independently established. Those matters are intentionally excluded from the public allulose count until the complaint or another strong source confirms the theory.

That exclusion is a feature, not a gap. A lawsuit against the same company during the same period is not automatically an allulose lawsuit.

Why Franco v. Chobani matters to Liquid I.V.

The Ulrich complaint was filed shortly after the Seventh Circuit's July 27, 2026 decision in Franco v. Chobani.

In Franco, the Seventh Circuit held that allulose falls within the federal definition of sugar relevant to sugar-free claims. The court also held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged deception and that the express-preemption theory used by the district court did not justify dismissal on the record before it. (Seventh Circuit opinion)

Liquid I.V.'s verified cases are in the Northern District of California, within the Ninth Circuit.

That means Franco is not binding Ninth Circuit precedent. It can be cited as persuasive authority, but the Ninth Circuit and its district courts are not controlled by a Seventh Circuit decision.

See our Franco v. Chobani guide for the holding and its limits.

FDA guidance versus the front-label claim

FDA's October 2020 guidance says the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion allowing allulose to be excluded from Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on the Nutrition Facts panel. (FDA guidance)

The complaints focus on a separate question: whether prominent "Sugar Free" or equivalent nutrient-content claims satisfy the rules governing such representations.

Section 101.9 defines Total Sugars, while § 101.60(c)(1) sets conditions for terms including sugar free and zero sugar. (21 C.F.R. § 101.9) (21 C.F.R. § 101.60)

For a fuller explanation, see FDA Allulose Rules and Zero Sugar vs. Sugar Free vs. No Added Sugar.

Current procedural status

The filings in all three Liquid I.V. cases are well verified, but we have not completed a same-day PACER review of each docket.

The public docket indexes we reviewed were retrieved around the filing dates and therefore should not be used to state that no later motion, amendment, reassignment, response, or scheduling event exists.

The accurate formulation is:

Three Liquid I.V. allulose proposed class actions are verified or cross-checked. The latest complete procedural status of each case has not been confirmed through a same-day PACER review.

Has a class been certified?

We have not identified a class-certification order in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

The classes described in the complaints are proposed classes.

Is there a Liquid I.V. settlement or claim form?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement or official claim form for the allulose cases in the records reviewed as of October 3, 2026.

Do not treat an attorney intake form, lawsuit-news signup, or investigation questionnaire as a settlement claim form.

What we know and what we do not

Frequently asked questions

Is there a class action against Liquid I.V. over allulose?

Yes. We track multiple proposed federal class actions challenging Liquid I.V. sugar-free labeling on products containing allulose.

How much allulose is alleged in Liquid I.V. Sugar-Free products?

The Ulrich complaint alleges either four or five grams per serving depending on the variant.

Is Unilever a defendant?

In the verified dataset, Hook and Baus name Unilever United States, Inc. and The LIV Group, Inc. Ulrich names The LIV Group, Inc.

Can I file a Liquid I.V. settlement claim?

We have not identified a court-approved settlement claim process in the records reviewed.

Does Franco automatically control these California cases?

No. Franco is a Seventh Circuit decision. The Liquid I.V. cases tracked here are in the Ninth Circuit.

Sources cited in this guide (8)

• Ulrich et al. v. The LIV Group, Inc., primary complaint, filed Aug. 12, 2026
• Ulrich federal docket index
• Hook v. Unilever United States et al. federal docket index
• Baus v. Unilever United States, Inc. et al. federal docket index
• ClassAction.org complaint-based report on Ulrich
• Franco v. Chobani, Seventh Circuit opinion
• FDA allulose labeling guidance
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.60

Last researched: October 3, 2026. Procedural status can change after this date.